SACUA: Tenure flexibility necessary; no bylaw change

Updated 4:00 PM February 8, 2006

SACUA: Tenure flexibility necessary; no bylaw change

By Kevin Bergquist

A provost's report recommending changes to the tenure process has fueled important debate on the issue, faculty governance leaders say. But members of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) and the Senate Assembly say changes to the process could be made without altering regents' bylaws.

Last summer, the provost's Committee to Consider a More Flexible Tenure Probationary Model recommended changing Regents' Bylaw 5.09 to extend the maximum probationary period for achieving tenure from the current 8 years to 10 years "so that schools and colleges have the freedom to provide longer tenure probationary periods when that is justified by their policies."

Adding two years to the tenure probationary process is not the best approach to solving complex issues, such as family care, joint and part-time appointments, early tenure, recruitment and retention, and maintaining standards of academic excellence, SACUA and Assembly Chair Bruno Giordani wrote in a Jan. 31 memo to Gramlich.

"Throughout all of our discussions in SACUA and Senate Assembly, there was unanimous agreement on the need for flexibility within the tenure system," Giordani said. "Existing University policies, including those concerning family care, joint appointments, tenure for part-time appointments, and early tenure need further consideration and can be changed, if necessary, without reform or changes to Regents' Bylaw 5.09."

Girodani's letter included a resolution passed by the Senate Assembly Jan. 23 that suggested faculty members in all University units should work for tenure policies that are fair and consistent within the framework of the existing regents' bylaw.

Regents' Bylaw 5.09 specifies that the maximum length of time a faculty member may remain in a tenure track position is 8 years.

The committee stated that U-M's existing tenure policy is too rigid because faculty often hold joint appointments, face funding limitations and are experiencing reductions in opportunities for scholarly publication. Differences in faculty career paths and intense competition among Universities to recruit and retain excellent faculty also can alter individual pursuit of tenure.

"While the committee strongly supports the institution of faculty tenure, we believe the reform of our policies on tenure will benefit both the University and individual faculty members," the report says.

The provost committee report recommends retaining University policies already in place, including excluding one year of service from the tenure clock for childbirth or dependent care; permitting more than one year of exclusion for multiple births or dependents; and preserving the possibility of excluding years of service for medical or personal emergencies.

Interim Provost Edward Gramlich asked for faculty input on the report, and SACUA and the Senate Assembly have discussed the document since July.

Giordani said there is strong and shared consensus of a need for the development of data on the tenure process and that a clear definition of what tenure means and an understanding of criteria for success in obtaining it must remain a top priority.

"The report clearly sparked an important series of University-wide discussions on this central aspect of academic life at this institution," Giordani said. "We look forward to continuing this dialogue in the fall, including a formal opportunity to respond, when the final report of the committee is completed and the Provost's recommendations are prepared for the Regents."

SACUA: Tenure flexibility necessary; no bylaw change

More Stories